It is naive to hold Ron Paul accountable for the views of his supporters. Why not do the same for all the other candidates? Are all of their supporters sinless? Not a single bigot, child molester, rapist, or murderer among them? How did the other candidates manage to screen all their supporters so that only "acceptable" people are allowed to contribute? Your argument is inane.

See Don Black, David Duke and Stormfront are not just a single bigot or child molester that nobody knows about they are the largest world wide white pride/nationalist/supremecist website and when you get endorsement from them, it says a whole lot about you and the campaign you are running. I don't care if Billy Bob, the molester gives money but when a group as famous as Stormfront is giving support then it becomes a real issue and trying to hide that is no better then spewing it from your own mouth

Oh and you can look at this from Stormfront and look all around Stormfront and see Ron Paul 2008 bullshit

www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Go to DavidDuke.com or www.whitecivilrights.com/(which has 17 pages of Ron Paul relations and many articles written by Ron himself) and you will see much of the same

don't believe me look at the photos and look at the websites and if you still want to deny this straight plain fact that Ron Paul is a racist and has a major support base of racists then you are a typical racist apologist/nazi sympathizer type and you should stay at Stormfront with your buddies and keep away from everything else because your racist kind is not welcome here!

So, no racist ever contributed to any of the other candidates? Are you people for real?

No, anti-semite ever contributed to Hillary?

Don Black and David Duke are not just little anti semites, they are both former GRAND WIZARDS OF THE KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN and now run the largest white nationalist community STORMFRONT. I don't care if some no name racist contributes to a campaign but when you have leaders who run huge worldwide websites and have ran the KKK that is when I care. Not only do you have that but you also have support from the Keystone State Skinheads coming along for the Ron Paul ride, they were at an anti immigrant rally (to which they made up 60% of the crowd, the rest was a gaggle of Ron Paul losers and a few other crazies) and the Ron Paul people were very cozy with the skins and the skins were nice and cozy with the Ron Paul nutzis!

So, if these guys supported the Clintons or Guilliani instead of Paul you would be calling them racist as well?

You may be giving the organized racist movement a major weapon to derail legitimate candidates that are anti-racist.

Yeah, I call racists out when I see them, I don't give a shit about party lines or your bullshit droning on and on about how Ron Paul is not a racist because I look to the facts and the facts say Ron is a racist and if Stormfront had Hillary banners and were supporting her I would go after her just the same as any candidate who gets support from major racist figures and websites!

Though out of curiosity how is Ron Paul anti-racist, I don't ever remember him apologizing for his comments on black people in his newsletter and I sure as hell haven't heard him denounce his Stormfront support base or give back any of the money he has graciously taken from them! I also know that he has never ever ever ever came out to an ARA action and he wasn't at the rally for the Jena 6 (though he probably didn't want to get robbed by those "fleet footed black teenage males" as he calls them) or done anything even remotely anti racist.

You damn right I would be calling them racists - and given the things Giuliani has said and done, it's apparent he is!

Aside from Ron Paul having *some* "racist" supporters, just what is your opposition to his policies? Who would be a better choice and why?

You anti-racist fanatics never cease to amaze me with your own form hatred and bigotry. If you're judging candidates based solely on their anti-racism and political correctness, then you have no business voting. Period.

Those racists were only former Grand Wizard of the KKK and founder of the worlds largest white nationalist/pride online community, it's not like it was one of those dirty stinking Joos or those E-leegals! If your judging candidates because they have some upstanding supporters like Don Black, David Duke and the Keystone State Skinheads and quality sites like Stormfront.org and the Vanguard News Network then you for sure shouldn't be voting because you might be one of "those" people and if our pal Ron was in power you wouldn't even be allowed!

It is naive to hold Ron Paul accountable for the views of his supporters. Why not do the same for all the other candidates? Are all of their supporters sinless? Not a single bigot, child molester, rapist, or murderer among them? How did the other candidates manage to screen all their supporters so that only "acceptable" people are allowed to contribute? Your argument is inane.

any other candidate would renounce such support, to think not is inane

But Ron Paul doesn't want to give away his supporters. If Ronnie starts renouncing support from the white nationalist community he would lose all that money and support and not be able to sustian his campaign well, he needs the racists support and he loves it but he won't admit those views publicly or it could ruin his campaign!

By the logic you use, President Bush should be in jail for supporting Scooter Libby, Rudy Giuliani should be indicted along with Bernie Kerick, and Hillary Clinton should be sharing a cell with Norman Hsu (Okay, those are bad examples!). BUt to hold every candidate to every supporter is like attributing a website's reputation to ever poster- whether they are published or not. This type of cheap, ad-hominem attack reeks of unfairly attempting to smear someone by not representing their positions accurately (or at all). 'Lonestartimes.com? PLEEEASE! A precursory glance at this site shows it to be a shill for the Bush administration and various neo-con policies. At loeast when you TRY to smear someone, use a semi-credible source, instead of a biased, obscure website.

This explains it well:
dc.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/155678/index.php

Cheap smear tactic.

This is too ridiculous. Ron Paul appeals to a wide variety of people. wake up! He is not a racist, never has been.

Of course he is not a racist and water is not dihydrogen monoxide! Heck you can ask the "fleet footed blacks" if he is a racist

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

But he cannot be a racist just because he says racist things and gets loads of support from racists and posts on racist websites...Right?

"Ron Paul appeals to a wide variety of people"
Of course, he appeals to Nazis and Skinheads and Klansmen as well as Paleocons and White Nationalists and White Sepratists and 9/11 Tr00thers and Conspiracy Nuts! I cannot believe these cheap smear tactics either, I just proved Ron Paul appeals to so many people and all these Zionist Commies keep attacking us

I think its a Great Idea for Ron Paul to run for President, that's a sure fire way to take more Republican votes away and the Democrats will Win!All you Stormfront idiots keep voting for Ron Paul, he'll take money from anyone!